Thanks for the response. I understand your reasoning, especially about
the whole BDD approach being an unproven/agreed on.
And yes, you have made it really easy to make and distribute custom
matchers. So thank you! I'll keep these extra matchers as a plugin for
now.
-Ben
David Chelimsky wr
On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
> > On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I would think that something like this should be worked into
> >> rpsec_on_rails. Because it makes testing AR behavior very easy and
> >> painless. One line of
David Chelimsky wrote:
> On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I would think that something like this should be worked into
>> rpsec_on_rails. Because it makes testing AR behavior very easy and
>> painless. One line of code = One line of test code.
>>
>
> I'd be hesitant
On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would think that something like this should be worked into
> rpsec_on_rails. Because it makes testing AR behavior very easy and
> painless. One line of code = One line of test code.
I'd be hesitant to include it in rspec_on_rails. I don't rea
I can see the good in simplicity there. I just liked the ability to
say Foo.has_many(:bars).through(:foobars) in such a readable way. I
did write methodology for a more terse listing of the options as
Foo.has_many(:bars).with_options(:through => :bars) etc.
RSL
On 10/19/07, Jerrett Taylor <[EMAIL
Cool. Well, it actually wasn't my code to begin with. I like the
extension you have done, though, and will integrate it into the current
set of matchers I'm using (I have done some tweaks of my own to the
original code.) Thanks.
-Ben
Russell Norris wrote:
> Ben, I actually looked through yr
Ben, I actually looked through yr code when coming up with this idea
but tried to take it one notch "cooler", i guess. with the whole
has_many(:foos).through(:bars) part.
RSL
On 10/19/07, Ben Mabey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been using a set of matchers that does this plus adds more AR bas
sorry.. I meant to say "spec code". :)
Ben Mabey wrote:
> I've been using a set of matchers that does this plus adds more AR basic
> matchers (such as validate_presence_of, etc.. - by testing the
> behavior.) I got the base of my matchers from this blog:
> http://spicycode.com/2007/4/2/rspec-e
I've been using a set of matchers that does this plus adds more AR basic
matchers (such as validate_presence_of, etc.. - by testing the
behavior.) I got the base of my matchers from this blog:
http://spicycode.com/2007/4/2/rspec-expecation-matchers-part-ii
I would think that something like thi
We have a similar one, which works like:
Foo.should have_association(:has_many, :conditions => "stuff", :through
=> :bazes)
we started off with should have_many etc, but it became overcomplicated
with all the various things that you may want - so we changed to
have_association to make it sim
I would like it :-)
On 19 Oct 2007, at 19:45 19 Oct 2007, Russell Norris wrote:
> I recently wrote a matcher for testing AR associations which allows
> you to specify things like:
>
> Foo.should have_many(:bars).through(:bazes)
>
> I'm pretty darned proud of it and a couple of people have sug
I recently wrote a matcher for testing AR associations which allows
you to specify things like:
Foo.should have_many(:bars).through(:bazes)
I'm pretty darned proud of it and a couple of people have suggested
that I should submit it to the rspec_on_rails project. Before I go to
the trouble of
12 matches
Mail list logo
